To understand women with at least some degree of competence, one must firstly understand Machiavellianism. Once they understand Machiavellianism, they must come to understand dissociation. After understanding dissociation, the next logical step is to understand dissociation’s relationship with rationalisation, for rationalisation is reason built upon fantasy. A hoax, but one that can only be identified as such once you have investigated its origin.

Most within the red pill community come to know of rationalisation before dissociation; I suspect many know not what dissociation is in spite of its relation to rationalisation. Without dissociation, the reality removing mechanism on which feminine solipsism is predicated, rationalisation lacks the conviction needed to be convincing. The most compelling of a woman’s performances thus requires dissociation to masquerade as truth. If she did not believe her lies, neither would you.

2.) Dissociative Rationalisation aka Hamstering:

If womankind did not possess an infinite capacity for dissociation, the effectiveness of her manipulations would be greatly vitiated. Such a woman would be unable to leverage her sexuality into attaining commitment once she’d had more than a few partners. Her sexuality would be utilised and disposed of like something to be consumed, as once perceived a whore, she would become her sexuality and deemed to lack essence in absence of it. All too aware of this, dissociation is women’s primary coping mechanism.

If a woman cannot sell herself a false narrative, she cannot manipulate men into holding her in higher regard. Her worthiness of this bothers her not, her only concern is to obtain her ends. Although man is romantic, he does not easily trust or forgive women of dubious history. Such women are objectified in great ubiquity, for no value is seen in a whore outside the physical pleasure her flesh can offer. Some women set out to commodify themselves in this manner, we call them prostitutes.

And yet a prostitute would not be able to engage in the mental gymnastics necessary to forgive herself her promiscuity if she were chained to decision-making in a way that reason absent dissociation necessitates. In order for a woman to opportunistically capitalise on her sexuality, she must be capable of great dissociation. With dissociation, she can avoid consequences for her life choices, enabling her to convince a man she possesses an innocence and chastity she has long lacked.

A woman would get what she deserves, rather than what she wanted or needed if she could not dissociate. Luckily, nature has equipped women with an instinctual proclivity to dissociate. Women have evolved to become humanity’s most competent liars, in spite of themselves, for their own sake. Rather than striving to be better than she is, womankind has become competent in pretending she need not be better because she already is what she isn’t – better.

3.) Mental Gymnastics:

Machiavellianism, dissociation and rationalisation lie at the root and core of female behaviour. Female manipulation is about as natural as much as it is instinctual. It comes easily. Some women are comfortable with this aspect of themselves, others are not. Some may freely admit this to themselves, others may need to see themselves as good; such women seek to maintain a pretence of virtue in order to prop up whatever semblance of sanity they possess. When a woman cannot accept what she is, she lies to herself about who she is until she believes in her lies. A lie told long enough feels like the truth, women know this truth quite intimately.

Of course, there are women who are at peace with their nature and do not care, their rationalisation merely a method of safeguarding reputation – a neurotic means to a rational end. These women are far more dangerous than their in-denial counterparts, for they are cognisant but seek not to mitigate their nature. This is to say that all women are Machiavellian, but some are so with more zeal and aggression. Effectively, some women value altruism in spite of themselves, so upon introspection deceive themselves about themselves with great conviction. Others do not care, so they do not.

All women are similar, but likewise within that similarity, there is difference as there is with men. The difference may not be as emphatically noticeable as it is within the diversity of man, but it is there. If the rather drawn out discussion on morality we’ve been having has taught you anything recently, it’s that although we all value the ideas discussed by the red pill, each of us will act upon this knowledge differently. Women are much the same with their capacity to manipulate and dissociate. Sometimes they indulge in it and weaponise it, other times they deny reality and live a lie as a means to cope. In spite of how they use it, they all use it.

What one must realise is that woman’s capacity to rationalise away anything she doesn’t like is one of the greatest tools she has in amplifying her manipulative prowess. If women couldn’t dissociate and rationalise to the point she can pass a lie detector test, she’d be far less proficient in manipulating man. And a woman who cannot manipulate a man is a vulnerable woman, for she is completely reliant on the volition and altruism of man rather than possessing any for herself. As such, women are not built to live and hunt alone, but to attach themselves to man. Conversely, man does not need women, but rather he covets her for all her ostentatious adornment and lustful appeal. Woman’s need is greater, but owing to the libido of testosterone, man’s is more pressing.

4.) Dissociation, Her Substitute for Psychopathy:

I find female dissociation to be something tantamount to psychopathy in the absence of psychopathy. Women can do great evil by act of self-compulsion, effectively inculcating themselves to believe the abhorred acts they have engaged in are without dishonour. In this aspect, honour is a uniquely male abstraction that women do not hold themselves to. Even if a woman does believe in honour, she may as well not; for she will find a way to pervert the truth and clutch at any justification necessary to make an act of dishonour seem honourable. They hold onto such clutched straws with a delusional sincerity that belies falsehood. And all this occurs to ensure her interests – at any cost.

I see a utilitarian parallel between female nature and psychopathic moral reasoning, in fact, I see many similarities between the two, but one must be careful not to confuse correlation with causation. It is not that women as a group are psychopathic, not at all, but rather, that dissociation allows them to behave as if they were by completely twisting reality.

The histrionic self-delusion inherent of women is an effective substitution for psychopathy if you need to get something done at any cost, but aren’t actually a psychopath. Man has always been baffled by how someone who feels great sympathy for others can seemingly, as if by choice, turn off such sympathy without a shred of guilt. This is a behavioural observation unique to women noted by many men in many places. What they are observing is a woman dissociating in order to withdraw sympathy where she once felt it. Even after reading red pill material man does not completely understand this aspect of women, the moral and logical gymnastics native to womankind continues to baffle man because man is a creature of reason and morals more than he is pragmatism. For women, this is not so.

The greatest irony is that man ponders women with a consciousness bound to reason, endeavouring to find the reason for the unreasonableness of the opposite sex, repeatedly failing. In this pursuit he encounters great futility and frustration, for even if the opposite sex did possess the required self-awareness to explain herself, which she does not, she would not be inclined to explain such a thing, for it would not serve her.

5.) Women, Words, Beliefs & Lies:

I don’t assign any real value to what a woman says when she speaks of morals or loyalty or other such topics. This may sound harsh or undue, but I believe it necessary. Knowing someone can dissociate in order to hold incredibly strong convictions and then likewise do the same to dispose of said convictions when they are no longer useful means that person will never have any credibility or sway with me. Someone who is too fluid in their views and convictions is someone who does not have strong views or convictions. Because even though these things may seem plausible and compelling in the moment, they are too temporary to carry any real depth. In essence, women have mastered the aesthetics of depth – to seem deep without being deep.

I regard such things to be nothing more than pretty aesthetics, an extension of what she does with her physical appearance manifesting in the mental. The female word is much like the female form, covered by makeup, nothing more than mere pretension, a distorted augmentation of who she really is. Much like man wishes to believe the woman he lusts for would be just as pretty without the makeup, he falls victim to this same line of thinking when assessing her mentality. And so as a man it takes me far too much work to ascertain whether her asserted beliefs are things said to please me, to deceive me or to otherwise please or deceive herself. And I know it is always one of these things, and never not one of these things, because if it were not one of these things, she would be not a woman.

As such one should judge a woman how one would judge any character so flexible as to be scrupulous. Ascertain whether what she says benefits her to be seen and heard saying, or whether her beliefs assist her goals in spite of reputational considerations. If it does not aid her goal, and yet she claims it, it is likely a lie.

For example, if she claimed to be unconditionally loyal, ask yourself if she needs to be loyal to get what she wants? No, you say? You say she ensnared a man who cannot maintain her respect to marry her? You find it likely she would get everything in the divorce? Then she claims what she does to safeguard her reputation or because she is otherwise invested in ignorant self-delusion. The delusion that she is incapable of the betrayal that any man of sound mind knows her to be capable of. Such a woman is not self-aware enough as to be in touch with her nature, but rather she is enamoured with the false image she has created for herself to look at. She believes she is the thing she tells herself she is, rather than the thing her behaviour tells us she is.

How does she so convincingly dissociate you ask? Women are good at transference, a term I use to refer to “reverse-projection.” Essentially, she believes a man’s loyalty to her is important, and so through cognitive transference can borrow the devoutness of that belief and appear, at least superficially, to hold herself to the same standard. She will temporarily believe she is loyal due to the conviction of her dissociation, much like you would temporarily believe an ugly woman is pretty whilst possessed by bourbon. Dissociation is intoxicating, and whilst under its influence, her shallow nonsense will sound devout.

Women have an innately powerful capacity to be entirely delusional in a self-serving manner, unhindered by logic and aided by dissociation, women are masterful liars. They are so good at lying to themselves, that lying to you is simply a by-product of their own delusion.

6.) Her Fluidity of Truth:

Women blend truth with convenient lies as to be deliberately confusing in a way that is nothing if not self-serving. The less intelligent amongst them forget what the truth really is, because it’s only ever what they need it to be.

Women are poor at rational abstraction, which means “their truth,” like them, is fickle. The more intelligent women can keep up with their own lies, and on some level know they do not entirely believe what they compel themselves to portray. But in spite of such cognisance, such women still possess a prowess in compartmentalising just enough to maintain the deception necessary to ascertain their goals. Women are greatly goal orientated and will jump through huge cognitive hoops to get what they want. Logic, valued by man as sacrosanct, is a sordid obstruction to the mechanics of the utilitarian female mind. When logic is inconvenient to a woman, dissociation takes its place.

And this way of being that possesses women is so innate it is not even calculated. It is a truly remarkable thing to behold, as to be a man, no such method of mind is inherent. Your beliefs, your sense of identity, it is neither so fluid nor so flexible as to constantly complement and adapt to your moment’s desires. You are not so free in your beliefs because your beliefs are not so fickle, they have merit, structure and a root reasoning for existing outside the immediate utilitarian aim that you seek. Again, I see great similarity between female and psychopathic morality. This is not to say all women are psychopaths because that is an incorrect diagnosis, but rather, although through different mechanisms, they equally possess a ruthless pragmatic morality.

7.) In Closing:

It doesn’t matter how much conviction a woman speaks with, for she can delude herself to believe whatever is necessary with uncanny prowess. She can pervert the truth so much so, that any old nonsense she says can speak with the conviction of truth even if it is an absolute perversion of it. This is woman’s greatest power, other than of course, her sexuality. And it is that element unique to women that makes her as effortlessly Machiavellian as she is. As I have said before, women are nature’s Machiavellians.

33 comments

This is one of the best articles I’ve read in my entire life. It applies perfectly to my current situation and has answered so many questions I had. You’re incredible and amaze me with every new article you post. Hope there will be many more coming. Keep up this amazing, life changing work!

Well done. I use the word, “emopathic” to label what you’ve brilliantly described in this piece. It’s a term which is for all intents and purposes a tabula rasa at the moment. Reading your work seems to flesh it out a bit within my mind. I’ve been working my way through your treasure trove of work as diligently as I can. I think what separates you from the handful of other intellectuals writing on this subject is the accuracy of your observations, the sharpness of your logic, and your ability to write clearly. For all of Rollo’s contributions, his work could be published with half as many words.

This is the most definitive article I’ve yet read explaining the female hamster. Bravo, every unplugged man needs to read this piece. Greatly clarified the concept for me even after I thought I had a good understanding of it.

I don’t know what literature you’ve read to become so capable of condensing down this information in your blog, but let me say: You’ve been capable of writing ideas that are not only at a level of complexity that I can value, but is so well constructed that it prevents me from finding words able to praise it well enough. I have to meet you one day.

I was reading a billion wicked thoughts and came across this section on page 69 reflecting on the observation that women were physically aroused by a variety of porn images but reported not feeling aroused:

“In other words, there was a dissociation between the conscious arousal of the mind and the unconscious (or semiconscious) arousal of the body. When the exact same experiment was conducted with male subjects, there was virtually no dissociation between the two types of arousal.”

It made me think of section 4 above and how biologically ingrained the mechanism of dissociation is for women.

Agreed. I’m glad that you have pointed this out. I am reminded from personal experience in a LTR that being caught viewing adult images lead to an adult encounter with a consenting adult that still maintains surface revulsion to adult images. This dissociation is fascinating.

“As such, women are not built to live and hunt alone, but to attach themselves to man. Conversely, man does not need women, but rather he covets her for all her ostentatious adornment and lustful appeal. Woman’s need is greater, but owing to the libido of testosterone, man’s is more pressing.”

"Man has always been baffled by how someone who feels great sympathy for others can seemingly, as if by choice, turn off such sympathy without a shred of guilt. This is a behavioural observation unique to women noted by many men in many places."
Its not unique to women. Men do it too. Lets say im a rich selfish jew. I would be inclined to help out a poor jew rather than a poor gentile. People always attach themselves to some group eventually in a power struggle.
"Someone who is too fluid in their views and convictions is someone who does not have strong views or convictions."
But many women completely believe and have attached themselves to the bullshit feminist ideology.

So they are more interested in what is more powerful so that they can attach themselves to that like a parasite, than what is right. That explains the fluidity, I guess.

I guess we just have to wait and watch how fluid or rigid they are about feminism when the system collpases.

You described the behavior of my mom. She has the ability to open and close emotional switches at will. And once closed, absolutely nothing will open an emotional circuit unless she opens it. No appeal to reason, family, or even her own long term interest will open that emotional circuit. My dad could be volatile, but his love was always unconditionally. There was absolutely no way for him to close an emotional circuit.

Wonderful article. Thank you for your insights, your blog is a beacon in a world that is slowly losing it’s moral compass. I see women act like whores online and then pretend to be madonnas IRL – you just hit the nail on the head when it comes to them dissociating or just plain lying.

It is very true this is how women are, and the older one becomes and has more life experience, the more obvious it is. I have a very good female friend who I am involved in a creative pursuit with. Whilst we get on well most of the time, when her solipsism comes out to suit an opinion or argument it is only me as the male who could possibly be wrong, as she, being a woman, could never be. The scary thing for non-Red Pill men is that they haven’t a clue what’s going on when women behave this way. The irrationality of the feminine is incredible at times! I don’t even think they realise how irrational they can be. As the old maxim goes, just consider them nothing more than big children, always hold your frame and never get married or have kids…

“Women blend truth with convenient lies as to be deliberately confusing in a way that is nothing if not self-serving. The less intelligent amongst them forget what the truth really is, because it’s only ever what they need it to be.”
This x100
I have a younger sister who has at one point stated that “truth is subjective”.
I laughed for a solid minute after that one.

How are you able to analyse the behaviour so well? Im grateful but frustrated I couldnt articulate and understand this myself. Through bad experience I have come to dislike women. However this is wrong, the behaviour and treatment I have received is hard wired and its my inability to recognise the nature of the beast which has been the cause of my problems. Thank you for opening my eyes.

One cannot help to wonder: as more women entered the realm of politics, did the political climate change? Party lines are sharper than ever in many western countries. Do female politicians thrive on the drama, and influence their weak male peers to join in their black-and-white world view? Maybe it’s unfounded, but I have this impression that politics back in the days was conducted with more respect towards disagreements. Topics were surely discussed passionately, but rarely with the modern-day standpoint that “you must be wrong simply because you’re from the other team”.

men need to learn to be aware and to notice that women will say things to please men to purposely deceive men. but men need to be AFRAID that women can also say things to please themselves to deceive themselves and ACTUALLY believe their own deceit.

take IM’s make-up analogy… and think about it: they know how they look without make-up but will cake it on to fool YOU into thinking they look different (deception). but it’s so 2nd nature to them that they say, “i have to put on my face,” and BELIEVE that their own face (without make-up) is NOT how they actually look.

So: their pre-eminence in the field of self-deception is explained by the necessary linkage between self-deception and deception, and in turn by their pre-eminence in deception (which originated from their physical inferiority).

Finally this has received an explanation — I yearned for one but could not find it.

Basically, they lack the “self-consciousness” additional mental module, that is found in a few, more mentally advanced men, and I see as a part of the mind that overlooks the rest of the mind.
(Though what this part “sees” might be all fabricated. Read Jaynes’ The Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind, it’s a milestone book.)

I can’t help but think that this writing again sounds very bias and only gives a half formed picture on female nature. On what exactly do you observe this behavior on women? The example you used on a woman talking about absolute loyalty seems to suggest you are talking about how they act when it comes to dealing with a relationship and thus you paint the whole gender with only one aspect of it. A naive woman can dismiss the entire male gender as predatory and self serving based on the sexual strategies he uses while ignoring the other parts that made civilization possible.

Saying man is a creature of morals moreso than woman also sounds like bias. If you read the rational male you will see how he writes about how the feminine imperative is defining masculinity to serve its needs, weather it be to take care of a child that isn’t his or staying in a relationship that does him more bad than good for him and to be a better beta, all of these are attempts of the FI to define what is morally good that so happens to benefit the woman more than the man. Likewise what you might be writing here and what you see as a lack of morals in women is them failing to serve what the male imperative wants.

I think the problem here is how far to take your ideas here when dealing with women. Her “truth” might be well be something men are incapable of experiencing or something they don’t care to think about

Illimitable Man always makes me question my red pill credentials and feel like I still have much to learn. This writing cuts through the bullshit. I will try to remember this the next time a female waxes hot about some moral imperative from her high horse.